I did not ask you to delineate what I thought or how you thought we were wrong or how liberals are better at preserving the family than conservatives . . . but what you yourself believed on the matter (without having to criticize anything or anyone, is that possible)?
OK, my beliefs are shaped by efficiency. What works best in terms of promoting the highest possible per capita income, inspiring scientific advancement, creating the best possible environment in terms of public welfare and safety, and personal happiness. So far the Scandinavians are in the lead (they just are). If believing in a giant spaghetti monster proved to be the most efficient system, I’d probably support it (even though I know there’s no such thing as a giant spaghetti monster).
I do try to see both sides of this issue. For instance I saw a guy who was no doubt an advocate for the health insurance industry give a TV interview. He said that Obama’s approach is flawed because he seeks to attack price (payments to providers) whereas in this guys view redundant care and bloated administrative overhead is the real problem. Then the guy proceeded to create this sort of giant slippery slope.
His view of the liberal perspective is essentially that they view economics as a zero sum game (which is a valid critique in my view). Right now we have a system that serves roughly 80-85% of all Americans very well. Do we want to sacrifice that model for the sake of the 15-20% who are left out of the current system?
Obama proposes a government run alternative that would compete with private insurance. The fear among those who oppose his plan is it would force many businesses to opt for the government plan (since they couldn’t compete otherwise). Then, as we see now with Medicare and Medicaid, many providers will wind up not accepting the government plan The slippery slope would wind up looking something like the reverse of what we have now. They believe that we could see a system where only 20% of our citizens are insured by private insurance companies (obviously the wealthiest among us), and 80% covered by a sub-standard government insurance plan. In other words sacrifice the middle class for the sake of a much smaller lower and working class.
Obama (and his minions) have analogized his plan to the post office. A no frills alternative that will keep private insurance rates in check (but won’t result in bleeding the current system dry of all its customers).
Is this slippery slope that Obamacare opponents paint valid? I don’t know; but I do know prospective slippery slopes are often drummed up to create unfounded fear in people. However, this slippery slope does have some merits (it’s not a purely speculative slippery slope like if we allow gay marriage we will ruin the American family, which is just preposterous). In fact on its face I’m inclined to side with the opposition. Obama’s plan sounds like a bad idea for one simple reason. His analogy to the post office is invalid since Medicare and Medicaid give us a real idea of what government run health insurance looks like (since they are, well, government run insurance plans).
Anyway, I don’t call myself anything (politically). I’m for what works. As for religion, I think believing in god-men who rose from the dead, men who acted as a conduit for a god, channeling that power into feats like dividing oceans, turning rivers into blood, and all the rest is absurd (and not something as an intelligent adult I’m willing to give serious consideration to). Did some sort of higher power have a hand in creating the universe? Who the heck knows … I’m just smart enough to know religion is silly. Beyond that I don’t pretend to have answers to age old questions that have perplexed man since we evolved into intelligent creatures.
Either way he makes a good point, now I’m wondering.
)
